Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:08:30 06/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2003 at 00:04:37, Michel Langeveld wrote:
>On June 04, 2003 at 19:50:06, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>On June 04, 2003 at 16:30:45, Michel Langeveld wrote:
>>
>>>>>//Nullmover with only material
>>>>>Nodes per sec.: 319485
>>>>
>>>>>//Nullmover with everything switched on:
>>>>>Nodes per sec.: 301770
>>>>
>>>>This looks strange. I think you should expect a much bigger difference in
>>>>nodes/s.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Dieter
>>>
>>>Yes I was also thinking it was odd...
>>>I expected also a bigger difference ... Am not sure why this is ...
>>>
>>>my eval starts with:
>>>
>>>int generatePositionScore(int alpha, int beta)
>>>{
>>> evalCounter++;
>>>
>>> if (isDraw()) return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> scoreType score = p.materialWhite - p.materialBlack;
>>>
>>> //lazy eval
>>> if (score - 150 > beta) return score;
>>> if (score + 150 < alpha) return score;
>>>
>>> ...
>>>}
>>>
>>>It can be that the first part which I call lazy eval catches a lot of positions
>>>.... or there is a much bigger hotspot as the evaluation currently.
>>>I will run a profile to see if I can find more out ....
>>
>>Kingsafety in many programs can be over 1.5 pawns.
>>
>>Almost any reasonable evaluation of passed pawns will require corrections of
>>over 1.5 pawns.
>
>Yes, you are right. Kingsafety and passed pawns is still on the todolist of
>Nullmover. It simply doesn't have any kind of such code. I have to take care to
>rise these scores after implementing it.
Pretty amazing that you can score so well on WAC without either.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.